|
Liz
Owl Lady



Registered: 11/16/04
Posts: 6,962
Loc: Massachusetts
|
An Inconvenient Truth
#5760307 - 06/17/06 10:58 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Saw this movie last night at a local small theatre. I thought that it was overall well done, made some great points, and some of the information surprised me. Has anyone else seen it? What did you think? Will it make an impact?
It saddens me to think that the decisions people have been making and are still making will so negatively and severely impact the next generation. I hope that the US steps up sooner rather than later to do our part to help the environment.
-------------------- Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5760490 - 06/17/06 12:29 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think anyone is going to do anything (or, more precisely, they won't do enough) until the situation has gotten so bad that no one can ignore it any longer. That probably won't come until a lot of people start to really suffer from ecological change.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: trendal]
#5760501 - 06/17/06 12:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: That probably won't come until a lot of people start to really suffer from ecological change.
You mean like the people of New Orleans?
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: trendal]
#5760507 - 06/17/06 12:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
True.
We don't know for sure that Man is causing the climate change. But, even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow...it still would not change people's consumption habits. People will still want to drive places and have stuff. People won't willingly give up this modern cushy lifestyle that we have.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5760553 - 06/17/06 12:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
trendal said: That probably won't come until a lot of people start to really suffer from ecological change.
You mean like the people of New Orleans?
I should have said "a lot more".
NO was a geographically isolated incident - the people of one area suffered while the rest of us got to watch it on TV.
What I meant is that I doubt anything serious will be done about climate change until we are all (but probably most importantly...until those of us in the 1st World) are suffering the effects of climate change.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin


Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: trendal]
#5760559 - 06/17/06 12:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You mean until half the population of the Earth is dead or dying, right?
--------------------
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: RandalFlagg]
#5760563 - 06/17/06 12:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said: True.
We don't know for sure that Man is causing the climate change. But, even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow...it still would not change people's consumption habits. People will still want to drive places and have stuff. People won't willingly give up this modern cushy lifestyle that we have.
It's the same reason people smoke tobacco while they know it's probably going to kill them. As long as the effects are not immediate, I think most people are likely to ignore the effects until such time that they become immediate.
Unfortunately by that time it is usually too late to make a change.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Shroomism]
#5760565 - 06/17/06 12:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shroomism said: You mean until half the population of the Earth is dead or dying, right?
Essentially, yes
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Shroomism]
#5760624 - 06/17/06 01:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shroomism said: You mean until half the population of the Earth is dead or dying, right?
sounds like a good start
|
Liz
Owl Lady



Registered: 11/16/04
Posts: 6,962
Loc: Massachusetts
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: trendal]
#5760626 - 06/17/06 01:23 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I unfortunately agree with you Trendal. Until it's too late (in some respects at least), nothing will change. It's amazing to me that with all of the blatent climate changes over the past few years, people still deny that this is going on. 
In the movie they show a pretty precise map of what will be under water if Greenland starts melting or if Antarctica KEEPS melting, which is likely given the pace we're going at, and sea level world wide would rise by twenty feet, displacing 100 million people. That blows my mind.
-------------------- Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5760658 - 06/17/06 01:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, the "science" in that movie is almost all bunk. There are numerous articles all over the net debunking pretty much everything Gore spouts.
Is climate change occurring? Of course. The Earth's climate has never been static to our knowledge. The questions which remain unanswered are:
1) How much of the change is due to the activity of humans?
2) Will the change result in a net gain to human exstence or a net loss?
As for "blatant climate changes over the past few years", there hasn't been any. I have no idea why you think there has been. From roughly 1940 to roughly 1970, there was a slight net global cooling. From roughly 1970 to roughly 2004, there has been a slight net global warming (although there is conflicting data on even that). In neither case could the climate change be characterized as anywhere near "blatant".
Phred
--------------------
|
Liz
Owl Lady



Registered: 11/16/04
Posts: 6,962
Loc: Massachusetts
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Phred]
#5760664 - 06/17/06 01:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well, there's the fact that there have been more huricanes, more typhoons, and that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded. I think that's pretty blatent. My cousin is a meteoroligist in Washington DC, and he went in to it in more techinical terms for me. In Boston last month there was a Nor'Easter. We're supposed to stop having those in January. Hurricanes have been stronger because of the rising water temperature.
There might be articles all over the net "debunking" the science in this film, but the signs of the warming are everywhere, regardless of whether people want to see them or not.
-------------------- Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
|
nickpdx
Registered: 11/15/04
Posts: 154
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Phred]
#5760673 - 06/17/06 01:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Unfortunately, the "science" in that movie is almost all bunk. There are numerous articles all over the net debunking pretty much everything Gore spouts.
Is climate change occurring? Of course. The Earth's climate has never been static to our knowledge. The questions which remain unanswered are:
1) How much of the change is due to the activity of humans?
2) Will the change result in a net gain to human exstence or a net loss?
As for "blatant climate changes over the past few years", there hasn't been any. I have no idea why you think there has been. From roughly 1940 to roughly 1970, there was a slight net global cooling. From roughly 1970 to roughly 2004, there has been a slight net global warming (although there is conflicting data on even that). In neither case could the climate change be characterized as anywhere near "blatant".
Phred
Climate change is of course a real thing, and we don't know how much humans have contributed to the effect, but it's my belief that we are definitely intensifying it. Burning billions of tons of coal for a few hundred years and burning 84,000,000 barrels (42 gallons each) of oil per day (each gallon containing roughly 20lbs of C02 if I remember correctly), in my mind, undoubtedly would alter the atmosphere in some human-caused way.
One reason why some cooling tends may have been measured is "global dimming." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5761383 - 06/17/06 06:10 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well, there's the fact that there have been more huricanes, more typhoons...
So sorry, but that is not a fact. There are TONS of statistics on both, and there has been no significant increase in either in the last few years. I live in a hurricane zone (Dominican Republic) and know quite a bit more about hurricanes and their history than your average joe. I am not making this up... it is easily checkable through multiple sources.
Quote:
... and that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded.
Worldwide? I'm gonna need to see a source on that. It may have been the hottest year on record in some city or some state or even in some country, but the planet as a whole? Don't think so.
Quote:
There might be articles all over the net "debunking" the science in this film, but the signs of the warming are everywhere, regardless of whether people want to see them or not.
Actually, it's not that people want or don't want to see them. It's that they aren't there to see.
Phred
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Phred]
#5761392 - 06/17/06 06:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
... and that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded.
It may have been the hottest year on record in some city or some state or even in some country, but the planet as a whole? Don't think so.
I have to agree, last summer was pretty mild here, we never broke 100F and I remember temps as high as 108F through my childhood
|
Gumby
Fishnologist


Registered: 06/13/01
Posts: 26,656
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5761401 - 06/17/06 06:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
As I said in the other thread about this movie:
Al Gore is a crack pot hippie loser.
Global warming is a myth used by the media to scare people and create news(and shitty movies, for that matter).
I refuse to see this movie.
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus



Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 9,126
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 9 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Gumby]
#5765268 - 06/18/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gumby said: As I said in the other thread about this movie:
Al Gore is a crack pot hippie loser.
Global warming is a myth used by the media to scare people and create news(and shitty movies, for that matter).
I refuse to see this movie.
Couldn't have said it better.
BTW, what happened to that impending ice-age of doom that was gonna kill us all? When I was in grade school (in the 70's) thats what all these same nutjobs were warning us about. Sheesh, can't these idiots make uip their minds!
-------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
|
cybrbeast
Up, then down, then...



Registered: 01/06/03
Posts: 4,777
Loc: event horizon
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: ToTheSummit]
#5765283 - 06/18/06 06:23 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToTheSummit said:
Quote:
Gumby said: As I said in the other thread about this movie:
Al Gore is a crack pot hippie loser.
Global warming is a myth used by the media to scare people and create news(and shitty movies, for that matter).
I refuse to see this movie.
Couldn't have said it better.
BTW, what happened to that impending ice-age of doom that was gonna kill us all? When I was in grade school (in the 70's) thats what all these same nutjobs were warning us about. Sheesh, can't these idiots make uip their minds!
Even though there are many uncertainties around global warming dismissing it like that is crazy. It's not made up by the media, the majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening, they just don't agree on the causes. Also an ice age might still be possible if the warming seas stop the Gulfstream from flowing.
--------------------
futuretribe.space
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.



Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Phred]
#5765755 - 06/18/06 08:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Can you dispute the claim that CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been since animals walked the planet?
How about that CO2 levels and global temperatures have a direct correlation, dating back as far as we are able to determine?
It's truly mind boggling that people are so skeptical about global warming. The data is there. You're not going to get an "i told you so" award when you turn out to be right...because you won't turn out to be right.
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: kake]
#5765769 - 06/18/06 08:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kake said: because you won't turn out to be right.
theres a hole in the ozone layer!!!!
it's still there, it's always been there, it will always be there the earth goes through cycles, it always has.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: kake]
#5765772 - 06/18/06 08:29 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone who doesn't think the climate's changing isn't paying attention. I don't need all these scientific measurements to tell me. This has been one of the wettest years ever in my hometown. There's very little predictability to it anymore. Make no mistake about it: global warming is fact. Sure, we may not drift into an ice age, but the fact is that we don't know what it's going to do. There are plenty of good estimates, though, and they're not pretty.
--------------------
|
Snaggletooth
Stranger in a Strange Land


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 6,109
Loc: blinks stupidly
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5765773 - 06/18/06 08:30 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Atheist Chat
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus



Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 9,126
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 9 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5768523 - 06/19/06 03:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The problem with this whole debate is that right from the start it has been framed as more of a political debate then a scientific one. "Global Warming" is just the latest catch-phrase for the activists to hang their hat on while much of the so-called science they quote is at best incompetent and at worst outright lies.
Is the climate changing (warming or cooling, does it matter)? Probably. But it always has and always will, despite the best (or worst) efforts of man to affect it. Thruth is, we could do nothing to start or stop the cycles of the Earth's climate even if we wanted to. And I'm curious, have we affected the climate of Mars also? After all, it has been experiencing "global warming" during the last couple of decades just like Earth has. Maybe its those damn rovers we sent up there!
And the amount of acurate record keeping of weather patterns (maybe a century or so) which we can refer to is insignificant in the scope of geological times. Its like watching the sunrise for a minute and then declaring that its heating up and we are all gonna burn up in the next 24 hours.
But the thing that pisses me off the most about it all is the attitude of the fanatics that if I don't buy into their bogus theories then somehow I don't give a shit about the Earth or our environment. The self-important hipocracy that spews from these morons really gets old after a while!
/end rant
-------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: ToTheSummit]
#5768711 - 06/19/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It would be foolish to deny that the Earth warms and cools on its own. It would be equally foolish to deny how radically we've transformed the planet and the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Also, knowing that the earth's climate is going through a major transition, it would be foolish not to take certain precautions.
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5768721 - 06/19/06 04:34 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It would be foolish to ask Americans to give up their plasma screen TV's and their SUV's.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5768739 - 06/19/06 04:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Also, knowing that the earth's climate is going through a major transition, it would be foolish not to take certain precautions.
"Major transition"? Nigga, please! Though there have been numerous figures tossed out there over the last few years, the most widely-cited number is 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C temperature raise in the last century. That's around 0.5 degrees F. And I will point out that even THAT number is disputed. Some data shows no rise, some shows a VERY slight drop.
But let's for the sake of argument accept the 0.3 figure as gospel. That in no way comes anywhere close to meeting the definition of a "major transition" in climate.
Phred
--------------------
|
Snaggletooth
Stranger in a Strange Land


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 6,109
Loc: blinks stupidly
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Gumby]
#5768741 - 06/19/06 04:40 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gumby said: As I said in the other thread about this movie:
Al Gore is a crack pot hippie loser.
Global warming is a myth used by the media to scare people and create news(and shitty movies, for that matter).
I refuse to see this movie.
It is a very really and serious thing and I have the graph to prove it,
--------------------
Atheist Chat
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus



Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 9,126
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 9 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5768767 - 06/19/06 04:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: It would be equally foolish to deny how radically we've transformed the planet and the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Ummmm, no. I see it as foolish to believe pseudo-science that says we have. 
Lets not forget that old mother earth herself spews more pollutants into her own atmosphere with a single large volcanic event then we humans have since the industrial revolution began.
-------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
|
In(di)go
People of the sun.


Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 8,157
Loc: Cologne, Germany
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
#5768879 - 06/19/06 05:15 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
kake said: because you won't turn out to be right.
theres a hole in the ozone layer!!!!
it's still there, it's always been there, it will always be there the earth goes through cycles, it always has.
yup... and that's why it's gonna wipe us off it's face before we do any irreparable damage... it's not the earth i'm worried about... earth will survive as it always has... it's our survival... especially the survival of our children and grandchildren...
--------------------
|
xDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx


Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Shroomism]
#5768889 - 06/19/06 05:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shroomism said: You mean until half the population of the Earth is dead or dying, right?
The mathematics involved in that comment just boggle my mind. First off, when you count population, you don't include dead people, if you did, you'd have the grand total of EVERYONE who's ever lived being chalked up as dead, which would be about 900x more than people are living now. And everyone on earth is dying, so i don't know watcha mean to say here
-------------------- Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms
|
Gumby
Fishnologist


Registered: 06/13/01
Posts: 26,656
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5769430 - 06/19/06 07:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Anyone who doesn't think the climate's changing isn't paying attention. I don't need all these scientific measurements to tell me. This has been one of the wettest years ever in my hometown. There's very little predictability to it anymore. Make no mistake about it: global warming is fact.
So you base your facts on 1 year of difference out of the 4.5 billion + years of earth's existence, right?
1 different year out of 4,500,000,000+ years, that makes a fact?
Wow! I never knew science was that simple!
I've been having problems understanding the Laws of Thermodynamics, can you simplify that for me as much as you did global warming? It'd be greatly appreciated.
|
Snaggletooth
Stranger in a Strange Land


Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 6,109
Loc: blinks stupidly
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Gumby]
#5769439 - 06/19/06 07:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
^^^^No well all know it's Bush's fault or the lack of pirates 
BTW your totally right,
--------------------
Atheist Chat
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
|
The glaciers are shrinking at an ever increasing rate, and within a hundred years or less at this rate, they'll nearly all be gone. 10,000 years since the last ice age, and they disappear in 150 years? There's your proof. To deny global warming is occuring with sea levels rising as they have been is simply repeating bushisms.
In addition, the last three generations have WIPED OUT 98% of the old growth forests in the US, and it's worse in most other countries where 100% of the native forests are gone. People seem to think they can plant tree farms to have an endless supply of wood for construction, but where the hell is the soil going to come from? Any gardener knows that as a plant grows it consumes nutrients from the soil, which must be replaced with new soil or by compost/fertilizer. In a native forest, it does that by large trees falling over and breaking back down into soil, returning that mass to the earth. When the trees are harvested and removed, no such rebuilding of the soil occurs.
Not to worry though. Mother nature will flush her toilet soon enough.
Oh yea, I havn't seen the movie. I gave up on al gore when he rolled over and played dead after he won the election, but refused to stand up and fight for the people who voted for him. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: ToTheSummit]
#5770233 - 06/19/06 10:42 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToTheSummit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: It would be equally foolish to deny how radically we've transformed the planet and the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Ummmm, no. I see it as foolish to believe pseudo-science that says we have. 
Lets not forget that old mother earth herself spews more pollutants into her own atmosphere with a single large volcanic event then we humans have since the industrial revolution began.
You live in San Bernardino, correct? Look out your window and tell me what the sky looks like. Do you think it looked like that 100 years ago? Did a volcano spring up there since then? Now, when I talk about transforming the planet, I'm not just talking about emissions. Our changing of the earth's ecosystems has a major impact, too.
Now, as for the argument that since Earth has had climate change before that we are therefore not responsible for our current climate change, let me offer you a parallel argument:
There have been major extinction events before humans evolved. Does this mean that human have not been responsible for any extinction events since arriving here?
It's simply mind-boggling to think that we can cut down all this rainforest and spew shit into the air and still think that we don't have an influence on the earth. Global temperatures don't have to rise that much to have a major impact, and we know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we spew a shitload of it into the air. When people say "Well, nature does it too," it reminds me of a little boy hitting his sister and saying "Well she started it!" We really ought to more mature than this.
As for the "pseudoscience" bullshit, the Bush administration would certainly benefit greatly from debunking it, and yet the Federal Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002, released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."(link) Now, I certainly wouldn't put it above the Bush administration to fund pseudoscience, but if they did, I would expect it to tow the Republican party line. Calling this stuff pseudoscience reminds me of the creationists who say that evolution is "just a theory." At least in that case, their anti-science stance isn't going to have a long-term impact on the earth's climate.
--------------------
|
EmperorKuzco
somewhatfamiliar

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 252
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5771741 - 06/20/06 08:24 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, it's time to stop the bullshit. Releasing one hundred million years worth of stored carbon (oil, natural gas, coal) in only a couple hundred years IS going to significantly raise the ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 is a GREEN HOUSE GAS!
It's not exactly rocket science.
But let's say Al Gore is wrong. Lets say global warming is a myth. What is so freaking offensive about not buying an Escalade or using fluorescent bulbs?
If Al Gore is WRONG and we DO ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, at least OPEC no longer has the world by the balls and we won't have to go to war over oil when it eventually runs out.
If Al Gore is RIGHT and we DON'T do anything.....................
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I've actually been wondering if it's too late to stop global warming(btw, no actual scientist has doubted the phenomenon since 2001 -- it's just that some have disputed its causes). I agree, though, that whether or not global warming can be stopped, we still need to worry about peak oil.
--------------------
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
EmperorKuzco said: If Al Gore is WRONG and we DO ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, at least OPEC no longer has the world by the balls and we won't have to go to war over oil when it eventually runs out.
If Al Gore is RIGHT and we DON'T do anything.....................
The really funny part about this is that is Al Gore has been consistantly against nuclear power, the one, already discovered technology that could truly free the US from OPEC's control.
Furthermore, if we were to believe the everything Al Gore said was correct, then why wouldn't he want to replace coal and oil power plants with nuclear power? If he harbors an irrational fear of what has been proven to be a clean, safe method of generating electricity, that's his problem. If he wants to blame someone for failing to reduce emissions, he can blame himself and the policy pieces he created while VP of the US which were all adamantly against nuclear power. (I could only dig up one on the fly, but you can check it out here if you don't believe me on Al Gore's position: http://www.nirs.org/press/11-13-2000/1)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Economist]
#5773017 - 06/20/06 04:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: The really funny part about this is that is Al Gore has been consistantly against nuclear power, the one, already discovered technology that could truly free the US from OPEC's control.
Not really. The only reason people think nuclear power is so efficient is because it's subsidized by the government. In reality, it's no more efficient than solar power.
Quote:
Furthermore, if we were to believe the everything Al Gore said was correct, then why wouldn't he want to replace coal and oil power plants with nuclear power?
Because although nuclear power does not produce smog like coal and oil power do, it still gives off greenhouse gasses.
--------------------
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Silversoul]
#5773043 - 06/20/06 04:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Because although nuclear power does not produce smog like coal and oil power do, it still gives off greenhouse gasses.
Exactly!
People tend to forget how intensive an industry the nuclear industry is. Nuclear power plants don't build themselves!!!
They require enormous startup costs - both monetary and environmental. They also require a LOT more to maintain them during use than any other form of power generation. Then when the plant is at the end of its life...you're stuck with a bunch of now-radioactive building materials to dispose of.
I don't have any links so I can't really vouch for this....but I read somewhere that a nuclear power plant actually takes more energy to build, maintain, and decommission than it will ever generate during its lifetime. That would mean nuclear plants are a power sink...not a true power source. This wouldn't be very apparent right now because oil is still cheap enough that we don't think of the energy cost in building/maintaining something like a nuke plant.
That says nothing of the energy/resources required to mine, process, and enrich the nuclear material that the plant will use during its lifetime.
If the cost of oil continues to go up (which I think it will) we may suddenly discover that nuclear power isn't the "cheap, clean" energy source we always thought.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: trendal]
#5773511 - 06/20/06 06:33 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Two points:
First, I don't know where you guys get the whole "Nuclear Power Produces Greenhouse Gases". Both the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the nice people at the University of Michigan ( http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm ) disagree.
Second, nuclear power is only so expensive in the United States becasue it's so regulated. Nuclear power plants in the US are required to restrict radioactive emissions to a level that is actually BELOW the amount of radioactivity that coal and gas powerplants give out. Even the average hospital gives off way more radioactivity than the average nuclear plant. It has to be subsidized by the government because its so overly regulated by the government. If it really was an energy sink, then how would France be able to survive when they get over 70% of their energy from nuclear power?
The answer is simple, it isn't a sinkhole in France because the regulation isn't nearly as intense.
Investigate nuclear regulation in the US and you'll find 1 universal truth, there is too much regulation for anyone's good.
|
EmperorKuzco
somewhatfamiliar

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 252
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Economist]
#5775723 - 06/21/06 07:53 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: Investigate nuclear regulation in the US and you'll find 1 universal truth, there is too much regulation for anyone's good.

Your right, regulations suck.
--------------------
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
|
Are you kidding me?
You respond with a pic of Chernobyl? You know, Chernobyl being the nuclear plant built by the Soviet Union. Did you think it was build by a private corporation? By definition, chernobyl would have to be one of the most HEAVILY REGULATED nuclear plants in existance because every part of it was designed, planned, and executed by the Soviet government. And, as your picture shows, we all know how it turned out.
Look at a country like Japan, as enumerated in this report ( http://www.wtec.org/loyola/ar93_94/np.htm ) by the World Technology Evaluation center.
The key part being: "Japan has been more successful than the U.S. in holding down the cost of constructing nuclear power plants. Institutional, regulatory, and cultural differences account for the higher cost of U.S. construction. Japan has also achieved effective nuclear regulation with far less disruption and delay in construction and licensing than has occurred in the United States."
It's interesting to point out that Japan has also achieved all of this without ever have a disaster even close to the scale of Chernobyl.
|
Acinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.

Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Economist]
#5776725 - 06/21/06 02:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The honest fact of the matter is, that as long as what's in front of their faces as tolerable it won't matter.
Reason being, humanity is only geared toward humanity, and in the scheme of things, selfishness. Environment is not seen as a direct component of success. In modern life we hustle through our day running errands, going to classes, going to work, spending time with our children, our friends and family. Success in a sense has become one of two things "balance" of personal and professional lifestyles, or the hunger for power and convenience, What you put into your immediate environment are all variables.
You can change the time of your doctor's appointment, you can play golf and make nice with the investor, you can sway the ideals of those around you... these are all immediate environment changes that the person can control. It does not lend anything to physical environment, because it can not be manipulated (not in the sense of producing things, but in the sense of personal success) so in turn, We see it only as a place of existence, a back drop to a life we believe we are creating through societies, to success of obtaining power--either through balance (lifestyle), or professional success.
When success is defined again, as it has been in the past, as spiritual harmony with the world we live in, that will change. That doesn't mean going all to religion. What I am refering to is nature itself. When I grow Portabellas, it requires me to tune into what they need to flourish and exist. I don't consider it a personal triumph of my own, but rather a triumph of the 'bella.
I suppose it could be said that I am manipulating the environment for my own gain of a yummy meal, but that is what it is meant to be. Not creation of chemically processed frozen dinners. When we become intune with nature, we will find that it meets our needs and we don't require power and manipulation for existence.
I know that the ideal is far fetched, and maybe only a personal belief of a utopia that people would be reluctant to embrace, and impossible to create over night. But it is happening, slowly, more and more people are raising against pollution and chemicals, commercialist ideals, and yearning for a simpler life.
Just my two cents
-------------------- :~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:{ * }:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~: All posts are made with only the intent to entertain myself and should ONLY be read with the understanding that they are FICTICIOUS. I do not warrant information I provide for use in illegal activity of any kind nor do I condone it for any reason. Furthermore, I am not, I have never, nor will I in the future, take ANY part in illegal activites.
|
EmperorKuzco
somewhatfamiliar

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 252
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Acinaxuz]
#5777824 - 06/21/06 07:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry about the pic, I was just being a smart ass. All my point is, is that there's no silver bullet to our energy needs. Nuclear energy certainly has its place, though the fact of the matter is that it does have the potential, however slight, of things going very very wrong.
We have to look for alternative ways to meet our collective energy needs, and in the transitional period between coal and gas fired generators to some kind of "green" energy like wind or solar, atomic energy may be part of the soulution.
But it comes down to this: What would you rather have in your back yard, this

or this?
--------------------
|
Liz
Owl Lady



Registered: 11/16/04
Posts: 6,962
Loc: Massachusetts
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Phred]
#5797119 - 06/27/06 08:08 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Unfortunately, the "science" in that movie is almost all bunk. There are numerous articles all over the net debunking pretty much everything Gore spouts.
Just wanted to follow up on this debate with an article that I just saw on cnn.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html
Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."
-------------------- Remember, remember the fifth of November The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
|
Left Nut City
Stranger

Registered: 03/27/01
Posts: 2,360
|
Re: An Inconvenient Truth [Re: Liz]
#5797184 - 06/27/06 08:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Global warming or not, the real threat to those of us living now is the Bush Administration and former 3'rd world powers having nuclear capability. Who cares where the Earth will be in 100 years climate-wise as long as there are mad men running loose with apocalyptic power??
|
EmperorKuzco
somewhatfamiliar

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 252
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
|
I'm actually looking forward to the apocolypse. I think it would be good for human evoloution in the long run, and it would be the coolest way ever to die. "hey how did you die? How did I die? In the motherfucking Apocolypse!"
--------------------
|
|